.jpg.900f6d1bc80a5a156f3ba09ea0e4b3d7.jpg)
Jason Ross
-
Posts
8,153 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Jason Ross
-
One start in Iowa. Went 3.2. From all reports looked healthy, struck out 6, gave up 3 runs.
-
Probably, definitely is. The way Counsell has typically used that 26th spot has been as a "place holder" for better or worse. They did this with guys like Miles Mastrobuoni, Luis Velasquez, etc. And I guess I kind of get it: you probably want to play Conforto, Shaw, Ballesteros, Amaya and Kelly (the five who more or less rotate in and out) and by the time you add Mr. 26th man, there just aren't many opportunities. So that player has to kind of be able to do: a lot of things "okay" but also be someone you don't mind being the sixth fiddle and someone you pay like being the sixth fiddle.. Like Kingery could probably handle 2b, 3b, LF or RF in a pinch and has a 73rd percentile sprint speed. You don't want to use him, but if you have to...then he can kind of do it okay-ish. So you get guys like Kingery in that role. The midpoint between "prospect we like but we don't want them to waste away" and "bad enough that this kind of non-playing role is acceptable to this player and the budget". It's certainly imperfect, but in theory, any injury will be replaced with MiLB talent and if Kingery can't even pinch run or field a ground ball, you can probably find Scott Kingery 2.0 or some version of an upgrade at the deadline for relative cheaply.
-
Someone remind the Phillies that they literally have the league's worst DRS
-
Bummer for Seiya there. Great PA, deserved better.
-
Question of the week: are you optimistic?
Jason Ross replied to Brock Beauchamp's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
That's fair. Nothing I posted was to suggest anything about him over performing numbers, only that the way the Cubs handle things, Stuff+ probably isn't where I'd go to point to an issue simply because, as Bertz explained, what the Cubs like and what Stuff+ likes are opposed. So I think even if things like his K% or whatever was good, we'd probably see that drop just because that's who the Cubs are. More concrete numbers like K% and the like, probably are where I'd go to point that out. I just think that the tweet of Stuff+ losers is probably a bit of a red herring distracting from that actual root issues. -
Question of the week: are you optimistic?
Jason Ross replied to Brock Beauchamp's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Yep. This is probably a better way of saying what I was saying. It isn't that the Cubs don't care about modeling, but that they don't seem to specifically align with what they care about and what Stuff+ care's about. -
Question of the week: are you optimistic?
Jason Ross replied to Brock Beauchamp's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
I think if the Cubs cared a lot about Stuff+ modeling we'd see...probably some change in philosophy. They consistently let pitchers throw four-seams that grade out ****** in Stuff+. Colin Rea used a lot of 4-seam last year and had a Stuff+ of 89 on that pitch. They're doing a lot of the same thing on Cabrera. They didn't really add a ton of "Stuff+" monsters this year either. Cabrera was one and his Stuff+ has gone backwards, as well. Mostly, I just don't think the team, for better or worse, is super worried about their Stuff+ rating. I'm not sure if that's a good thing in that they have their own models that they like better and score well in. If it's a bad thing because Stuff+ has correlated with K's and whiff. If it's a weird thing that observed movement and seam shifted wake just isn't being picked up on. This is an opinion. I have no proof of this. But circumstantially the team isn't acting like they're worried about that as a data point so while Cabrera's Stuff+ number is super down, I'm just not sure it's the number I'd hone in on. If I was worried, and to a little degree I am, it'd be the whiff and the chase numbers that are well down. I'd feel better if the contact numbers were better than they are, for example. -
Question of the week: are you optimistic?
Jason Ross replied to Brock Beauchamp's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Also that while I think Stuff+ is a good tool, it's only one part of the story. It's never a "good thing" to drop on the Stuff+ modeling, but Stuff+ is just measuring shape. With the rise of seam-shifted wake and teams doing tricky things with observed vs measured movement, this probably adds into it. The Cubs don't seem to super care about Stuff+ it would seem; they were not among the leaders in this last year (tied for 19th) and sit at the same 99 Stuff+ as a team this year. Internally, I would assume they think more of their internal modeling of shapes. Cabrera's savant page is probably telling us a better story. The good news is that he's limited contact better this year. He's dropped his arm slot a little and he's gotten some more arm-side run. The bad news is that he's getting less chase and less whiff. So if you want the rosy answer it's that "the Cubs are working through some arm slot stuff to better handle control and limit hard contact and the K's will follow" (similar to the two halves of Horton's 2025?) and the non-rosy side is "while he's limiting contact better it's not particularly great still and the whiff numbers going in reverse is never good". I'm a bit in the middle of those two things. -
If you have a .93 run scoring chance and it goes up, it isn't just about scoring Pete in that scenario. If Pete gets picked off, then you still have a runner on. We have to understand run matrices are taking all of this into account. When we add runners, we expect more runs to be scored. And listen, again, if your best argument is anecdotal we are inventing "what ifs" then we should probably assume there is no correct choice. Two things can be true: 1. Maybe you'd have done something different. Frankly, I don't care. 2. It almost assuredly would not have changed the outcome. That's what I care about. Everyone playing Monday Morning manager here is just shuffling papers. Walking Nico, walking them loaded...everyone here probably lost.
-
it does and it doesn't. It doesn't mean Pete is more likely to score individually. We can assume that a single run is more likely to score because the number goes over 1: it's trying to assume how many runs you can expect. So if we expect .93 runs to score versus 1.4 runs, it's logically more likely one run scores with 1.4 than .93. And there is no data to suggest walking Nico is really lowering this. Kimbrel is high FB%, Nico is good speed and probably steals anyways, and Busch was a top- wRC+ in baseball against RHH last year and usually hits a lot of fly balls. It's a little wonky when determining extra innings as teams act differently. So it's imperfect, and I don't mean it to be perfect. And the Cubs don't need two runs which changes things. But point also remains; adding base runners isn't good. And of our best option is "this" than at best we are at "no clear answer" and we should probably stop acting like the Mets chose a braindead option versus a "no win situation" choice. Not that the you are just in general.
-
It frankly is embarrassing because of the over confidence of some people thinking their answer is a significantly better outcome. Yes. There is literally no good choice. Run matrices says adding runners increases scoring. There might be some small anecdotal reason you pitch to Busch over Nico, but its anecdotal. There is no correct choice here. People pretending there is a better option than the other is silly. And Cohen might get fired. He wont get fired because of this choice. That's asinine.
-
It really isn't. No one is getting fired because of a run scoring with a runner on 3rd with less than 2 outs.
-
And yet bases loaded 1 out is the highest run expectancy you could create. There is no clear answer and we gotta stop pretending there is. If "What I would have done" is add to the chances a runs scores, there just isn't a good choice. A run was almost always going to score there.
-
So then you *best* option is a bases loaded situation against Alex Bregman, with a pitcher who is struggling to throw strikes? Every option sounds bad. And to be clear here is your run matrix for a run scored in all of the possible situations: 3rd, 1 out: .930 runs scored 3rd and 1st, one out: 1.17 runs scored 3rd and 2nd one out: 1.4 runs scored Bases loaded one out: 1.6 runs scored All we are doing is making a run more likely to score by adding base runners. There is no clear answer here.
-
To put it another way; if your other option is "maybe the guy who was in the top-10 of RHH vs LHP last year is mentally not perfect" than there is no clear option for the situation you're in. The Mets were in a situation where almost anything they did was going to result in a run scoring.
-
Hoerner steals 2nd base with a fielders indifference immediately if you walk him. There is no double play option. The Mets aren't guarding against it with the game winning run on 3rd. Especially if it's PCA who goes on a steal attempt.
-
Kimbrel has very real L/R splits. Kimbrel doesn't get ground balls to begin with. Busch hits a lot more fly balls than Hoerner does traditionally. Pitching to Hoerner was the right call. Both are bad choices but you pitch R-R with the hitter more likely to hit it on the ground. Hoerner got the SF. Both are bad choices. Pitching to Nico is the better option even if he came through. The Mets were in a near lose-lose proposal.
-
It's probably the right call. Kimbrel doesn't get ground balls (he's on the very high fly ball% train) and Busch is a LHH. He's struggled for a few weeks but it's not a great matchup. Go after the guy who doesn't fly out deep very often and hope you get a ground ball or a pop up that way. Sometimes you're stuck between a bad place and a bad place. The Mets got stuck there. Good on the Cubs. Good sweep.
-
Assad looking solid. His 2 seam has some bite on it today.
-
He went up a level. Better pitching and Triple-A has a good deal of those "former MLB guys who are too good for Iowa but not good enough for a rotation" types. They're far more capable of attacking LHH to their weak spots. LHH league wide are worse against LHP (85 wRC+ in 2025) than RHH are against RHP (96 wRC+ last year). The Cubs also have Matt Shaw who hit lefties really well. The incentive to let a rookie LHH who provides no defensive value and therefore everything comes from the bat face LHP just flat out isn't there. So there isn't much of a reason for the Cubs to find out if he can hit LHP very much right now.
-
He is rehabbing tonight in Iowa.
-
Jaxon Wiggins to the Iowa IL
Jason Ross replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
Probably none. It isn't like Tread is brand new. Instead, it's way more likely that "this is what pitchers do" and we are just getting hit with it all at once. -
Minor League Discussion & Boxes, 4-17-26
Jason Ross replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
Sounds decent. I'd prefer if that was more 94-96, as 92-94 feels a bit "over ager beating up on kiddos' but he has little experience above ACL so maybe balances out? Not terrible but not as fun as McGwite tossing 99 too.
